If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You have made reference to this a couple times....please give me an example of who is taking from who and redistributing the wealth? I'm confused on this statement (seriously).

LOL...the way I read his rantings, Mr. Overby is all in favor of entitlement for HIM. He thinks clubs' lazy or working members are abusing limits, they couldn't possibly have limited grounds or lose money from holding a test, so let's force them to, so he can run all his dogs and put food on his table. Yeah, that sounds like socialism. ((((eyeroll))))

Okay - I'm just trying to understand. You are a Pro? Sorry did not realize that. So you are looking at this from that perspective, got it.

But taking "food off your table" doesn't necessarily put any food on my, I don't get paid in any way form of fashion to run a dog or to put on the event, if anything I loose money (vacation days, gas, hotel expense, etc.). So I don't get the "redistribution of wealth argument." But I do understand the, I'm a Pro trying to make a living and limiting my ability to enter hurts my bottom line.

This sport is a delicate balance between volunteers who put on the event and a Pro making a living, but if the Ams "throw in the towel" and stop volunteering to host events because they can't enter their own events, then it doesn't matter how many dogs a Pro has to enter or if there are limits on entries because there will be no event to enter...you will not even have any food for your table as a Pro and the volunteer Am will save two-three days of vacation time

I don't know what the solution is to make things balance out, but I can promise you, my small club can only handle so much with the resources we have. I will do everything in my power to try and make sure my club members know when the event is opening, I will make sure I do it at a time that is convenient for them so they can enter, because without them no one will have an event to participate in....I'm not concerned if a Pro doesn't make a profit of an event that is run by unpaid volunteers. To me that's more socialist in nature.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Pro (I use a Pro because it's impossible to train on solid water and in the dark).

LOL...the way I read his rantings, Mr. Overby is all in favor of entitlement for HIM. He thinks clubs' lazy or working members are abusing limits, they couldn't possibly have limited grounds or lose money from holding a test, so let's force them to, so he can run all his dogs and put food on his table. And wow, some of those club members who work might even make more money than him so it's OK for them to take days off from their jobs to make it happen. Yeah, that sounds like socialism. ((((eyeroll))))

Wrong again. I don't believe in entitlements. My point was by limiting you take money away from those who choose to make their living in doggie games. Way to misconstrue what I meant. Guess you also missed my RANTING about helping at every test I attend in addition to holding one every year. You probably also missed the post about our club almost closing its doors due to some poor decisions...
My point is that you can't just take from those who do get their dogs entered and call that fair. It has nothing to do with me personally, however there's a whole group of folks who do this professionally who will not be happy with the idea of limiting their opportunities.

And let me add - for our FT, when it got out last year that PPRC would not hold a trial (I'm a little burnt out)....I swear to God my phone rang off the hook because the local FT Pros and those who visit our circuit were all about making it happen. So I do get the impact that a Pro can have a very positive impact on a club, without our local FT Pros, PPRC would of thrown in the towel....

As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.

This is commendable, and those sound like dream grounds. 5 small ponds with each having enough space to park 50+ rigs and far enough apart tests wouldn't interfere with eachother would mean the difference for so many clubs that now have to use limits. We don't have any shortage of water around here, but finding places that you can get permission to use and that can accommodate the traffic of a big HT are very few and far between. Really, the lack of land is the biggest problem our sport faces, and land access is only going to get worse since it's a finite resource.

Okay - I'm just trying to understand. You are a Pro? Sorry did not realize that. So you are looking at this from that perspective, got it.

But taking "food off your table" doesn't necessarily put any food on my, I don't get paid in any way form of fashion to run a dog or to put on the event, if anything I loose money (vacation days, gas, hotel expense, etc.). So I don't get the "redistribution of wealth argument." But I do understand the, I'm a Pro trying to make a living and limiting my ability to enter hurts my bottom line.

This sport is a delicate balance between volunteers who put on the event and a Pro making a living, but if the Ams "throw in the towel" and stop volunteering to host events because they can't enter their own events, then it doesn't matter how many dogs a Pro has to enter or if there are limits on entries because there will be no event to enter...you will not even have any food for your table as a Pro and the volunteer Am will save two-three days of vacation time

I don't know what the solution is to make things balance out, but I can promise you, my small club can only handle so much with the resources we have. I will do everything in my power to try and make sure my club members know when the event is opening, I will make sure I do it at a time that is convenient for them so they can enter, because without them no one will have an event to participate in....I'm not concerned if a Pro doesn't make a profit of an event that is run by unpaid volunteers. To me that's more socialist in nature.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Pro (I use a Pro because it's impossible to train on solid water and in the dark).

FOM

You and I are now officially on the same page. The redistribution of wealth was a metaphor...maybe I should of said redistribution of available entries? And again I agree that without the volunteers a test is impossible...
Some things I have learned since our club almost went bankrupt:
You have to have volunteers
You have to have birds...cost is irrelevant
You have to have judges...if you can find em locally it really helps the bottom line but they are a necessity
You have to have poppers(hrc)
You have to have bird boys
Without any of these you cannot have a test
I have found it is much easier for a club to be successful if it has a large number or pros that participate. We held MANY tests of predominantly single dog ams that barely broke even, never filled up, and were day of, walk up paperwork nightmares.

I think the suggestions made so far are just that - ideas, nothing more. I don't like the idea of a random draw (or similar), I have to plan my vacation days with work and I can't just change the last minute. Pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I don't think taking away a club's ability to manage it's resources is the way to go either (or you get rid of the mandatory split).

I think we are all focusing on the symptoms vs. the issue. I personally think it's the drive to qualify for the MN and the additional titles now offered. Keep in mind HRC does not require a dog to re-qualify for the Grand, hence why you don't see the large numbers in Finish. (At least that's my opinion)

OK Mark. One suggestion was to let folks sign up their dogs and then depending on the number to only take the first 3 or 5 or whatever arbitrary number the club chose to meet the predetermined limit. So if I successfully signed up 10 and then the club went back at took away 5 of my spots and gave them to someone else is that not redistribution?? Another solution was to let folks sign up and then place them in a random lottery draw?? So now, after I've signed up I may not even get an entry while someone else does?? Further, it is taking money out of my pocket to allow someone else an opportunity...sounds like social welfare to me.
As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.

Joe,

I am 100% with you on the various proposed solutions. Seems everyone like a solution that allows them in but hurts some other class. But you simply miss the mark that the clubs somehow are limiting entries for the lulz. Of all the HTs in my region, since I am not familiar enough to opine on the grounds and help elsewhere, single one has limited at what I consider a reasonable number. But even if they wanted to limit at less than their max capacity, it is their club and they can do what they want. Couldn't one throw the 'socialism' argument back at you when you are saying that these clubs could hold larger HTs therefore they should so you can make a living?

Besides, your network seems to be working well as you seem to have gotten into every HT that has filled.

I think the suggestions made so far are just that - ideas, nothing more. I don't like the idea of a random draw (or similar), I have to plan my vacation days with work and I can't just change the last minute. Pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I don't think taking away a club's ability to manage it's resources is the way to go either (or you get rid of the mandatory split).

I think we are all focusing on the symptoms vs. the issue. I personally think it's the drive to qualify for the MN and the additional titles now offered. Keep in mind HRC does not require a dog to re-qualify for the Grand, hence why you don't see the large numbers in Finish. (At least that's my opinion)

You have to ask yourself, why are there so many Master dogs?

FOM

100% agree. I will say though that I wish hrc would make requalification for the grand every year mandatory. Personally I would rather worry about how to accommodate monster entries than I would worry about even breaking even. It costs us $10000 to put on a test...we take a gamble every single fall as to whether or not we will cover our cost.

I am 100% with you on the various proposed solutions. Seems everyone like a solution that allows them in but hurts some other class. But you simply miss the mark that the clubs somehow are limiting entries for the lulz. Of all the HTs in my region, since I am not familiar enough to opine on the grounds and help elsewhere, single one has limited at what I consider a reasonable number. But even if they wanted to limit at less than their max capacity, it is their club and they can do what they want. Couldn't one throw the 'socialism' argument back at you when you are saying that these clubs could hold larger HTs therefore they should so you can make a living?

Besides, your network seems to be working well as you seem to have gotten into every HT that has filled.

You could throw the argument right back at me. You could say its unfair to allow me to get my dogs entered for the sake of making a living and no one else. Which is why my argument was in favor of limiting NO ONE.
No network here...my clients and I watch EE like a hawk...I fear next fall will be much, MUCH worse.